Chennai Court November 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Tatvani Shipping Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ437
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The appeal against the second respondent South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited is not pressed.2. The appellants filed O.S. No. 237 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Tuticorin praying for a judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 4,74,118.67 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the plaint till date of decree and, subsequent interest at 6 per cent per annum till date of realisation with costs of the suit.3. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows: The first respondent-first defendant is the owner of the ship and the second respondent is the agent of the first respondent at Tuticorin. The first respondent received on board at CONSTANTZA in the Repub-lic of Rumania 17610.920 M.T. of bulk Urea in apparent good order and condition for carriage to Indian ports on 24.8.1981 and issued a Bill of lading evidencing such receipt on the same day. On issue of such Bill of Lading the first responde...
Ramalinga Bajanai Madam by Muthupillai Vs. Gerart Pappammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ468
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to declare its right over the suit property and for injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Bajanai Madam managed by the trustees, one Ananda Chandrasekaran by deed dated 6.4.1972 donated the suit property to the madam. One Ramalinga Gramani by deed dated 2.4.1970 bequeathed properties to his daughters. However, he left out some properties from the purview of the will and bequeathed those items of properties in favour of Ananda Chandra Sekaran his eldest son-in-law. In fulfilment of the wishes of Ramalinga Gramani, Ananda Chandresekaran donated the suit property to the madam and handed over possession also to the Dharmakarthas. The first de-fendant has purchased 3/4th share in the suit property from the de...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Estate of Late Kumararaja MA. M. Muthia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)279
BY THE COURT :All these tax case references are at the instance of Revenue and the questions of law referred to us are more or less common. The question of law referred to us in TC No. 176 of 1985 reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the tax deducted at source on the interest income from Ceylon should not be included as the assessees income liable to Indian Income-tax ?'2. Question of law referred to us in TC No. 177 of 1985 reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the tax deducted at source on the interest income from Ceylon should not be included as the assessees income liable to Indian Income-tax ?'3. The question of law referred to us in TC Nos. 253 and 254 of 1985 reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the net interest income from Indian Overseas Bank,...
Chillies Export House Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)9; [2000]241ITR162(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this Court in T.C.P. Nos. 61 and 62 of 1983, dt. 18th July, 1983, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner was not an industrial company within the meaning of s. 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1971, and it was not entitled to concessional rate of tax 2. This tax case reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80. The point that is in issue, which is common for both the assessment years, is whether the assessee can be regarded as an industrial company within the meaning of s. 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1971. It is not necessary to burden the judgment with the factual details as the assessee's own case for the asst. yrs. 1974-75, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1971-72 came ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Deenadayalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR133(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and had material facts to hold that the remuneration paid to the partner by the partnership firm in his capacity as, and by virtue of the partnership contract between the partners, is deductible from the share income, computed under section 67 of the Act, as the share of the Hindu undivided family which has the beneficial interest in the said partnership firm in which it is represented by that partner ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessments rejecting the claim of the assessee to treat the payment of salary paid to Deenadayalan, i...
M. Krishnan and 44 Others Vs. the District Collector, Erode District, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC366
ORDER1. This Court ordered notice of motion to the respondents and the respondents have also filed a counter, besides produced the documents. 2. Common arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mr. D. Murugesan, Special Government Pleader and Mrs. T. Kokilavani, Government Advocate for the respondents. It is sufficient to refer to the facts relation to one of the writ petitions. 3. W.P.Nos. 15883, 15884, 11952, 11953, 12495, 12496, 12497,12498, 15499 to 15510 of 1997 relate to deeds of conveyance executed in favour of the writ petitioners and they have been respectively registered as deeds of saleby the third respondent as document 3159, 3166, 3170, 3158, 3161, 3169, 3171, 3162, 3178, 3177, 3175, 3174, 3173, 3172, 3168, 3167, 3160, 3165, 3164 and 3163 of 1995. Admittedly, the registration of these documents has been completed. 4. W.P.No.13660 of 1997 relates to a deed of compromise in respect of P.No.55 of 1997. 5. W.P.Nos. 15885, 15886, 12589, 12590, 1...
Venus Industries Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 1998(59)ECC259; 1999(105)ELT555(Mad)
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of a certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent in No. Engg./114/LJS-80/AM-81/SPS V.2, dated 24-9-1986 and that of the first respondent in Order No. 8-47/CA.86/EP.1/8303, dated 2-11-1988 and quash the same. 2. The affidavit in support of the writ petition states as follows :- The petitioner is a Small Scale Unit engaged in the manufacture of bicycle component and accessories and exporting the same for several years and they were also getting export incentives such as Cash Compensatory Support (C.C.S.) and REP licences all those years during July/September, 1980 and June/July, 1982 the petitioner exported in bulk quantities bicycle components and accessories such as bicycle gear cases, mudguard, chain wheel, chain adjuster, saddles, side stand, crank pedals, etc. The petitioner also applied to the second respondent for cash compensatory support against the export under Serial Number 9(b) 'Bicycle components a...
Mohamed Badhusa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC756
ORDERC. Shivappa, J. 1. In this petition, an order of detention has been challenged by a friend of the detenu. The order of detention is dated 14.11.1996, bearing G.O.SR.I/1340-4/96, passed by respondent No. 1, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA' Act, in short).2. The facts which led to the detention, in brief, are; that on 18.9.1996, the detenu was intercepted by the Air Intelligence Unit Officer on suspicion at Anna International Airport, Chennai, while he was proceeding for security check after the clearance of immigration and customs formalities. On questioning and on detailed examination of his baggage and person in the presence of witnesses, it was found that US $56,200 (562 notes of US $ 100denomination) were kept concealed in two bundles in the two inner chest pockets of his coat and the same were recovered, as he was not in possessi...
R. Parthasarathy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ675
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, a party in person has filed the present writ petition, a public interest litigation praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring the order/actions dated 20.4.1997 of the President of India in appointing Shri I.K. Gujral as Prime Minister as unconstitutional and null and void ab initio and further direct or order for holding the twelfth general elections immediately.2. In fact the petitioner in person took pains and argued the matter. Being a public interest litigation, this Court also heard the writ petitioner in detail. It would be, not only essential, but also in the fitness of things to incorporate the material portion of the affidavit instead of summarizing the averments.3. The petitioner took this Court through the contents of the affidavit and it is sufficient to set out the material portions of the affidavit, which read thus:I say that I am aggrieved that the President of India has sabotaged and scuttled the Constitutional pr...
Chillies Export House Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax High Court o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1997
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)496
M. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.In pursuance of the directions of this Court in T.C.P. Nos. 61 and 62 of 1983, dated 18th July, 1983, under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to Chillies Export House. Ltd. v. CIT (Mad) as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for our consideration .Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner was not an industrial company within the meaning of s. 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1971, and it was not entitled to concessional rate of tax ?2. This tax case reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80. The point that is in issue, which is common for both the assessment years, is whether the assessee can be regarded as an industrial company within the meaning of s. 2(6)(c) of the Finance Act, 1971. It is not necessary to burden the judgment with the factual details as the assessee's own case for the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »